You know, STR8UP might be right here...

[TheHumanist]

So it's always good to hear from a woman who managed to rope an AFC into working full time and going to school full time so she can have her magic carpet ride at home raising children full time that aren't his -- and make him think that HE was the player. Did I pretty much cover your situation, kitty kat?

I love the talk about what women and children *deserve*. This is the female mind in a nutshell. (A surprisingly easy fit.) This notion of entitlement -- women deserve this, children deserve that -- allows women to make any sort of demand from men, and once they've gotten all they want, walk away without a guilty conscience. After all, her little rug rats *deserve* whatever she can get for them.

And, on top of that, she adds just a little dose of shaming for questioning the women's motives. Notice how effectively our man #17 backs up when he gets a taste of it.

All in all, a beautiful live case illustration of female entitlement mentality.

Let me make a quick response in pk's defense. First, I have to say that I'm in no way in support of men see it is some duty that he should take care of the poor lady having to raise the kids alone. It is not ideal, it is not optimal, and frankly, a man can do better. After all, anyone would rather have a man or women who have no children from their past, if everything else is equal.

However, I think penkitten is speaking more of an ideal then from an entitlement. I mean, ideal a child should be raised by a good mother and a good father who provide a good role models for their children to model by. Ideal, a relationship should be joyful, supportive, and beneficial to each other.

Thus ideally, a married man should be in a marriage with a wife who respects him, love him, and treats him well by her own desires and vice versa as well as do the women able to find a loving and caring husband (obviously both have to uphold their role, able to earn having such a person).

I think penkitten is speaking more about that then just a child should just be spoiled (which is bad obviously), but more of the ideal of having a good rearing and a good husband more about the ideal that a person is able to find a good person to be with than just happen to have a man that she done nothing to earn it.

 

[penkitten]

So it's always good to hear from a woman who managed to rope an AFC into working full time and going to school full time so she can have her magic carpet ride at home raising children full time that aren't his -- and make him think that HE was the player. Did I pretty much cover your situation, kitty kat?

I love the talk about what women and children *deserve*. This is the female mind in a nutshell. (A surprisingly easy fit.) This notion of entitlement -- women deserve this, children deserve that -- allows women to make any sort of demand from men, and once they've gotten all they want, walk away without a guilty conscience. After all, her little rug rats *deserve* whatever she can get for them.

And, on top of that, she adds just a little dose of shaming for questioning the women's motives. Notice how effectively our man #17 backs up when he gets a taste of it.

All in all, a beautiful live case illustration of female entitlement mentality.

let's be frank here, it is not me that seems to be under some illusion spell.
no magic carpet rides, nothing of the sort.
who told you i didn't WORK at a JOB? who ever said i sat around on my butt all day?
i get up every morning and get my children off to school and go to my job where i work by the sweat of my brow so i can pay the bills, and then i come home and do dinner and chores and homework with my kiddos.
my husband works and goes to school and has to study and just doesn't have time to do chores, so the kids and i do them all. (as if you actually cared.) his schooling is his choice, i don't make him go. it is also expensive, and he has to pay out of his own pocket for it...
my husband is a great husband and my best friend and wonderful with my children, but i didn't get any financial gain out of it. it actually seems as if i have less money once i finish paying the bills now than i did before we were together.
just because most of the chicks you know would take advantage and quit their jobs to sit on their butts, doesn't mean that i am like them.

ideally, children do deserve to have 2 loving parents in a home and if someone wants to come along and be a step parent to them, praise to them.

i never said in my post that children should be spoiled or women should be spoiled or men should be spoiled. call me old fashioned but you gotta work if you wanna eat.

 

[##17]

Cool, we got a discussion going.

I know penkitten's posts, and I've always respected her opinion. She was NOT saying I was a bad guy for not wanting to stay. I think that what she WAS saying is that I should just wish them happiness as I am free to pursue what I want. I can agree with that.

As I said a few times, I am very glad that guy isn't me but hey, it is his life. He made the decision. I do hope it works out for both of them, but I am very glad that guy isn't me.

 

[penkitten]

Cool, we got a discussion going.

I know penkitten's posts, and I've always respected her opinion. She was NOT saying I was a bad guy for not wanting to stay. I think that what she WAS saying is that I should just wish them happiness as I am free to pursue what I want. I can agree with that.

As I said a few times, I am very glad that guy isn't me but hey, it is his life. He made the decision. I do hope it works out for both of them, but I am very glad that guy isn't me.

no, i never meant that you were bad in any way.
im glad you were honest and forthcoming with knowing how you felt about the whole commitment.
its a hard thing to take on, and you don't have to.
i was proud of you when you told me you had no ill will and i can see how healthy of a head you have - you aren't crying the blues ... you are just posting the thread.
nothing jaded your mind , and i wish more posters were like that.

i said what i did, because i felt like i should.
there is nothing wrong with someone who wants to be with a single parent.
i wouldn't urge everyone to go out and get with someone just because they could, but it isn't horrible.
i, myself, am not good step parent material.
that seems to be a harder role than being a parent.

you have to work as a family and establish authority roles very early.
the parents have to take you at your word and not question why you did or said anything. that is the only way it works really. having both the parents accept that you are the step parent and that whatever you say sticks just as much as what they would say. everyone has to be on the same page.
if my husband sends a kiddo to a corner, i don't even speak to them until he tells them they can come out. i could never question his motives because that would raise some alert in my child to start to question, and then to try to take advantage by trying to get away with something.
my children have had to look at it like this :
"i have 2 parents at moms and 2 parents at dads that all love me and would never hurt my well being."

 

[thedeparted]

no, i never meant that you were bad in any way.
im glad you were honest and forthcoming with knowing how you felt about the whole commitment.
its a hard thing to take on, and you don't have to.
i was proud of you when you told me you had no ill will and i can see how healthy of a head you have - you aren't crying the blues ... you are just posting the thread.
nothing jaded your mind , and i wish more posters were like that.

i said what i did, because i felt like i should.
there is nothing wrong with someone who wants to be with a single parent.
i wouldn't urge everyone to go out and get with someone just because they could, but it isn't horrible.
i, myself, am not good step parent material.
that seems to be a harder role than being a parent.

you have to work as a family and establish authority roles very early.
the parents have to take you at your word and not question why you did or said anything. that is the only way it works really. having both the parents accept that you are the step parent and that whatever you say sticks just as much as what they would say. everyone has to be on the same page.
if my husband sends a kiddo to a corner, i don't even speak to them until he tells them they can come out. i could never question his motives because that would raise some alert in my child to start to question, and then to try to take advantage by trying to get away with something.
my children have had to look at it like this :
"i have 2 parents at moms and 2 parents at dads that all love me and would never hurt my well being."

I love that you are "not good step parent material" but you asked this of your new man. You wouldn't raise another's spawn, but you expect him to raise yours. Women are far more pragmatic when it comes to mating. You are no romantic fool. He is.

As such, you embody the female evolutionary behavior we've discussed here ad nauseum. In a word, mate with the the good genes, then shack up with the good provider. The father is the alpha, whose genes propagate. The new man is the beta, whose genetic line has died, in service to yours.

Not only that, but you advocate for men to raise other's children. Perfectly serves the female interest to mate with the alpha, then get the beta to provide for the offspring.

And you call that..... LOVE

P.S. I also love how the guys will line up to defend a girl. The harder I hit, the more will come to your defense. They've ingrained the idea that women cannot be called out. Women are delicate flowers. Etc. These are blind to reality, and willing. They are the tools that will get used the most...

 

[TheHumanist]

jezz, Call women out if you wish. I was just starting that in context of humanism and not evolutionary biology that a child should be raised by good mother and father and as human, humans are social creatures with a desire for connections to men and women. If a man have something similar, I posted something similar. I thought of these questions before, just never brought them out to ask.

So anyways, I'll sit out on after this post. I'll just pose questions here and stay quiet.

In the evolutionary biological view, single mothers are those who mated with "good genes" man and then go out and marry "good dad," and thus sacrifices the "good dad" genes for her own.


However, being a humanist and all, I also look at the humanism perspective. I'm taking account of the personal perspective. Basically, a women who ****ed up really badly choosing the wrong man earlier in life. Was it a mistake or bad character or was just following evolutionary imperative (following evolutionary imperative will have implications on free will, btw even if she had a choice)? A woman have interest in finding a man to help care for her child. However, does the desire for a companion to share does that exist? Does she not be able to "love" anymore? In addition, if a woman have done such a mistake, how should she conduct her behavior afterward or have she waived any hope of redemption? For a man, is it always beta and against "good" to even wish such a couple luck? If it a man who decides the benefits still outweighs the damage and he had carefully considered his options is such choice always unacceptable?

 

[thedeparted]

I am stating that a woman's "love" is just the way that her genetic imperative guides her to behave. Sure she "loves" the guy that gives her what she needs at the time. In the beginning, the alpha male genes. Later, the beta male provider behavior and resources. The source of "love" is the selfish gene. Nothing more or less. That is why you so frequently see the pattern of women "making mistakes" and having babies with the alpha males even after they are married. Then going or going back to the beta males for family life. Exactly the pattern of pen kitten, and millions of others I've seen.

How should she conduct her behavior? I am not prescribing anything. I'm not designing a social system. I'm not offering morals or strictures. I can only say how a MAN should act. And I believe a real man would not invest in another's offspring. That is genetic suicide. It's an act of weakness made by a man who is desperate for companionship, and believes that he is acting out of "love" wherein reality it is probably loneliness.

Is it okay for a man to make that choice? Sure. Have at it. Somebody's got to pickup the garbage, clean out the sewers, and fvck the BBW's, too. But not only is it genetic suicide. Financially risky. But you also have little to no rights over those kids if the woman changes her mind. Putting yourself into that situation seems stupid to me. But if that is all you can get, it could be better than nothing. I just wouldn't call it being a DJ.

 

[Tazman]

You can also forget about having a constructive discussion with women on this board, they are no different than the ones we encounter in our own everyday lives. Critical arguments become emotional diatribes.

 

[gösta berling]

Wow, that was very well articulated. I find myself having this mindset as well.

One of my favourite threads.

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=145693&highlight=schedules+mating

 

[ketostix]

I am stating that a woman's "love" is just the way that her genetic imperative guides her to behave. Sure she "loves" the guy that gives her what she needs at the time. In the beginning, the alpha male genes. Later, the beta male provider behavior and resources. The source of "love" is the selfish gene. Nothing more or less. That is why you so frequently see the pattern of women "making mistakes" and having babies with the alpha males even after they are married. Then going or going back to the beta males for family life. Exactly the pattern of pen kitten, and millions of others I've seen.

How should she conduct her behavior? I am not prescribing anything. I'm not designing a social system. I'm not offering morals or strictures. I can only say how a MAN should act. And I believe a real man would not invest in another's offspring. That is genetic suicide. It's an act of weakness made by a man who is desperate for companionship, and believes that he is acting out of "love" wherein reality it is probably loneliness.

Is it okay for a man to make that choice? Sure. Have at it. Somebody's got to pickup the garbage, clean out the sewers, and fvck the BBW's, too. But not only is it genetic suicide. Financially risky. But you also have little to no rights over those kids if the woman changes her mind. Putting yourself into that situation seems stupid to me. But if that is all you can get, it could be better than nothing. I just wouldn't call it being a DJ.

I can emphathize with what you are saying but I think there may be some holes in that theory. There's no doubt that the guy that got the girl before she had children and while she was younger got a lot better deal than the guy that comes afterwards. And most likely a guy who would accept a woman with kids is less desirable to women or he'd get a maiden. But all this talk about Alpha male and better genes and that women are flawlessly driven to mate with the "Alpha" male and the guy with best "genes", I think is far from proven.

It's been shown that stupider people breed more and have more different mates and "broken" familes too. You know, it's also alpha to be successful, get the best mate that will stay with you and provided the best enviroment and support for your offspring as well.

I've seen plenty of case where the younger and never impregnated female got with guys who arguably weren't the better genes or Alpha. One can say by default which ever guy the woman chooses to first impregnate her is the Alpha, but I don't think this is reality or the the only yardstick to measure good genes or alphaness.

I think people under-estimate nurture/enviroment/society's influence on women's mating behavior. You know, a lot of women are just flat out messed up in their heads and none of their choices and decision have a good basis. I've seen enough to support the case that women do not necessarily choose to mate with the male with the best genes, most alpha qualities.

Think about it this way, the highest quality "Alpha" females tend to pick the highest quality guys and have the least different number of fathers. What you mostly have is a case of beta males mating with beta females who often end up with possiblly an even more beta male as a provider. Part of what I'd consider alphaness is having some structure and harmony in your life and relationships.

And PK I'm not in any way insinuating you're a beta female. I'm just commenting in general on thie genetic theory. I think rather than others speculating on alphaness and good genes, PK maybe you could comment on your first man's qualities if you want. You certaintly don't have to if you don't want to though.

 

[##17]

I'll say more. One thing that pisses many men off about dating single moms is that too many of the single moms are looking for someone to fill a role. Not all, but too many of them. The reality is that a man needs in a partner a woman (kids or no kids) who supports HIS mission, his goal in life. She does this as best as she possibly can, because she is on HIS train. He is the leader.

And you know what--for most of our relationship, she was a very giving partner for me, except at the beginning when SHE was the one who was reluctant to get involved. She stayed with me when I hardly had any money. She bought ME dinner at least as much as I did for her. I'm not going to say things were perfect, but it was good.

So yes, I am always going to wish her well from the bottom of my heart.

That said, one reason why I felt relieved is that I often regretted the relationship ending. I wondered if I could have been happy with her--she treated me so well when we were together! Hearing what she ended up with instead though, convinced me that she didn't get how a man needs a woman to follow him, and how I would not have been happy with her long-term.

 

[puma183]

I'll say more. One thing that pisses many men off about dating single moms is that too many of the single moms are looking for someone to fill a role. Not all, but too many of them. The reality is that a man needs in a partner a woman (kids or no kids) who supports HIS mission, his goal in life. She does this as best as she possibly can, because she is on HIS train. He is the leader.

The no-fault-divorce laws enacted in the last 40 years have effectively neutred the husband's LEADER position in the family. When you are holding none of the cards, there is very little leadership you can exercise in practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce

 

[STR8UP]

But all this talk about Alpha male and better genes and that women are flawlessly driven to mate with the "Alpha" male and the guy with best "genes", I think is far from proven.

"Flawlessly" is a big word that can mean a lot of things.

I don't think anyone is proposing absolutes here. But when you read studies done on how women show a stronger preference for "good genes" when they are able to conceive, you have to concede that it is more than just a coincidence.

Hell, they have done SCENT studies where they had a seceral guys wear t-shirts for three solid days and nights and had women rate the men based only on SMELL, and based ONLY on this criteria, the women rated the more attractive, symmetrical, muscular, etc. guys higher than the less attractive ones.

There is A LOT going on "behind the scenes" that we either do not yet fully understand, or do not give enough credit to for the way it influences our behavior.

I think people under-estimate nurture/enviroment/society's influence on women's mating behavior. You know, a lot of women are just flat out messed up in their heads and none of their choices and decision have a good basis. I've seen enough to support the case that women do not necessarily choose to mate with the male with the best genes, most alpha qualities.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that women's choices do not have a "good basis". I think it might APPEAR to be totally irrational or against the theory that women are inclined to mate with a particular type of man, but if you were able to strip everything down to see all of the motivations and the weight that is placed on each one, you would see that much of it can be traced back to biological urges, no matter how clouded things may seem with the cloak of society around it.

 

[##17]

"Flawlessly" is a big word that can mean a lot of things.

I don't think anyone is proposing absolutes here. But when you read studies done on how women show a stronger preference for "good genes" when they are able to conceive, you have to concede that it is more than just a coincidence.

Hell, they have done SCENT studies where they had a seceral guys wear t-shirts for three solid days and nights and had women rate the men based only on SMELL, and based ONLY on this criteria, the women rated the more attractive, symmetrical, muscular, etc. guys higher than the less attractive ones.

There is A LOT going on "behind the scenes" that we either do not yet fully understand, or do not give enough credit to for the way it influences our behavior.



I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that women's choices do not have a "good basis". I think it might APPEAR to be totally irrational or against the theory that women are inclined to mate with a particular type of man, but if you were able to strip everything down to see all of the motivations and the weight that is placed on each one, you would see that much of it can be traced back to biological urges, no matter how clouded things may seem with the cloak of society around it.

Thought-provoking, especially the 'smell test'. I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph.

This is why we have to be careful about our own feelings, or we could end up getting fleeced. I mean, speaking for myself personally, it is hard for me to hurt the woman who is devoted to me. We need to realize though, that in the end, everyone pursues their own self-interest (whatever that might be precisely), and that there is some sort of ulterior motive behind that devotion that might, MIGHT end up hurting us long-term if we're not careful.

 

[ketostix]

"Flawlessly" is a big word that can mean a lot of things.

I don't think anyone is proposing absolutes here. But when you read studies done on how women show a stronger preference for "good genes" when they are able to conceive, you have to concede that it is more than just a coincidence.

Hell, they have done SCENT studies where they had a seceral guys wear t-shirts for three solid days and nights and had women rate the men based only on SMELL, and based ONLY on this criteria, the women rated the more attractive, symmetrical, muscular, etc. guys higher than the less attractive ones.

There is A LOT going on "behind the scenes" that we either do not yet fully understand, or do not give enough credit to for the way it influences our behavior.

What I'm saying is genetic programming is a part of it but it's not the end all be all. There's plenty of research that shows human behavior and choices are dependant on and influenced by enviroment/nurture. And the most attractive, symmetrical, muscular guy is not necessarily the guy most girls mate with.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that women's choices do not have a "good basis". I think it might APPEAR to be totally irrational or against the theory that women are inclined to mate with a particular type of man, but if you were able to strip everything down to see all of the motivations and the weight that is placed on each one, you would see that much of it can be traced back to biological urges, no matter how clouded things may seem with the cloak of society around it.

You could say every biological urge constitutes a good basis. But I wouldn't say every single person's biological urges are a good basis to act upon. I don't believe that everything a person does is completely driven by their urges. What you are really saying ultimately Str8up is a woman will choose to mate with the best looking guy with the best genes. Essentially were all bound to the fate of our genes, we either have good enough genes and looks or we do not. I don't think this is the case. For various reasons, women many times choose poorly or choose the guy who doesn't have the best looks, genes, fitness. Everything women do may have a basis, but that doesn't mean it's a good basis, or that it's based primarily upon genetic instinct.

I would say that women are naturally attracted to certain traits, markers and qualities as if they're programmed to be attracted to them. But that's not the same thing as those being the "best genes" and most "alpha". Enviroment is always a factor, it can never be stripped down out of the equation and it never has been.

 

[jophil28]

Think about it this way, the highest quality "Alpha" females tend to pick the highest quality guys and have the least different number of fathers. What you mostly have is a case of beta males mating with beta females who often end up with possiblly an even more beta male as a provider.

I agree and it is THE NORM .
WHat Keto just outlined is far more common than the "good genes" as father and "good beta mate " as provider scenario.

I have seen many women 'select' a man to mate with from a variety of motivations. Usually because he was just as mushy or screwed as dear old dad.
A good example would be daughters of alcoholic fathers. Invariably they marry and mate with alcoholic males. These women just replicate their modeling.

AS Keto said, "messed up " women make messed up choices. Their psychopathology leads those choices, not nature.

 

[MaTuA]

Interesting topic. Basically the way i see this whole discussion boiling down to a 50/50 coin toss on game day.

 

[SAYNO]

What I'm saying is genetic programming is a part of it but it's not the end all be all. There's plenty of research that shows human behavior and choices are dependant on and influenced by enviroment/nurture. And the most attractive, symmetrical, muscular guy is not necessarily the guy most girls mate with.




You could say every biological urge constitutes a good basis. But I wouldn't say every single person's biological urges are a good basis to act upon. I don't believe that everything a person does is completely driven by their urges. What you are really saying ultimately Str8up is a woman will choose to mate with the best looking guy with the best genes. Essentially were all bound to the fate of our genes, we either have good enough genes and looks or we do not. I don't think this is the case. For various reasons, women many times choose poorly or choose the guy who doesn't have the best looks, genes, fitness. Everything women do may have a basis, but that doesn't mean it's a good basis, or that it's based primarily upon genetic instinct.

I would say that women are naturally attracted to certain traits, markers and qualities as if they're programmed to be attracted to them. But that's not the same thing as those being the "best genes" and most "alpha". Enviroment is always a factor, it can never be stripped down out of the equation and it never has been.

Best post on this subject so far!

It makes sense and it matches closely with my real world observations about how women actually behave, without being overly technical or pedantic.

Nice job!

 

[Hooligan Harry]

Women are always going to be looking for the bigger better deal. The problem is that most men are by and far very average. Same can be said for most women. The difference is that modern women believe they are entitled to more then they are worth and as a result it creates a massive rift.

You basically have 6's and 7's who feel they deserve a multi millionaire prince with 6 pack abs. So instead of being happy with the average guy they settle for him while always looking for the next catch. If not to land him, just to **** him. Women date up, so if you have a 6 or a 7 thinking she is an 8 or a 9, you have ridiculous expectations and a 50% divorce rate.

Marriage is not the problem. The problem is a sense of entitlement that western women have. When you have them flooding the universities in droves doing their arts degrees and organising marathon Desperate Housewives and Sex in the city sessions with their girlfriends its NO WONDER they think they are missing out.

Women never grow up. They want their fairytale dammit and they want it now!

Go to a country where there are a shortage of men and see what happens. The shoe is on the other foot. You have 8's and 9's that would share you outright then lose you. You have women fighting over you. Crying because you are going to another city for a few days and will probably meet someone else. Its like the twilight zone

Now I have a theory and it may be nuts but it may not be far off either. Men have always had shorter life expectancies then women. Even in peaceful times. During most of our history though, very few men went through a period in their life when they were not involved in wars or conflict of some sort. We basically dropped like flies.

Men were always dying and there were always more women then men. They were dying in conflict or they were dying doing dangerous work. That means that throughout our history there has always been a shortage of men and a shortage by a fair margin.

What that means for the gene pool is that women, even the good looking ones, had to COMPETE for men. There was always competition for good men. It was easy to breed, but to land a decent man they had to put in a tremendous amount of effort and also offer a lot to keep him. The male sex drive kept her in check and was her worst enemy.

Now, there is no shortage of men at all. They no longer have to compete for men because men are everywhere. They also no longer fear the male sex drive, they realise that that the male sex drive is what allows them to better control men. They dont need to offer much either because if this man refuses to put up with her demands she will snare another quite easily. Changes of course when they find that bigger better deal and they will eat glass to keep him. Men now have to compete for them because there is a shortage of worthwhile women who will give them the time of day.

 

[STR8UP]

Excellent post Harry.